Sample records for telf-tpp-3 proposed action

availability of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facilities and infrastructure to scientists who wish to conduct experiments there. DOE would allow these experiments if they can be conducted without interfering with the WIPP's primary transuranic waste disposal mission and if they reflect contemporary budget priorities. This fact sheet presents questions and answers about the proposedaction and its alternative. The deep geologic repository at the WIPP could provide a favorable environment for

Since signing the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) in 1989, the parties to the agreement have recognized the need to modify the approach to conducting investigations, studies, and cleanup actions at Hanford. To implement this approach, the parties have jointly developed the Hanford Past-Practice Strategy. The strategy defines a non-time-critical expedited response action (ERA) as a response action ``needed to abate a threat to human health or welfare or the environment where sufficient time exists for formal planning prior to initiation of response. In accordance with the past-practice strategy, DOE proposes to conduct an ERA at the N Springs, located in the Hanford 100 N Area, to substantially reduce the strontium-90 transport into the river through the groundwater pathway. The purpose of this ERA proposal is to provide sufficient information to select a preferred alternative at N Springs. The nature of an ERA requires that alternatives developed for the ERA be field ready; therefore, all the technologies proposed for the ERA should be capable of addressing the circumstances at N Springs. A comparison of these alternatives is made based on protectiveness, cost, technical feasibility, and institutional considerations to arrive at a preferred alternative. Following the selection of an alternative, a design phase will be conducted; the design phase will include a detailed look at design parameters, performance specifications, and costs of the selected alternative. Testing will be conducted as required to generate design data.

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION (CX) DETERMINATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSEDACTION: Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) proposes to obtain an easement for an existing access road which is located in Carroll County, Arkansas. The easement will serve to facilitate Southwestern's electrical utility vehicles accessing electrical transmission line 3008, near structure 33, in Carroll County, Arkansas. PROPOSED BY: Southwestern Power Administration- U.S. Dept. of Energy DATE: January 28,2011

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to include a detailed statement'' in every recommendation or report on proposals'' for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.'' Unless the three elements of a proposal are present (major, federal, and action), preparation of a detailed statement is not required. This paper addresses the practical decision-making dilemma that attends determinations of what types of Federal activities meet the NEPA threshold test under what kinds of varying circumstances. The authors' experience with the US Dept. of Energy (DOE) NEPA documentation is used to discuss how decisions may be made to determine whether a proposedaction qualifies for a categorical exclusion'' or whether it requires preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The concept of new'' actions versus continuing'' actions which may be bounded'' by previous NEPA documentation is also discussed. A dichotomous key for separating or combining Federal action'' candidates for different levels of NEPA documentation is provided. Leading court opinions on the threshold question and related issues are discussed in lay terms.

Chromium Project Notice of Proposed Floodplain Action Public Comment Period Closes November 20th, 2015 The Department of Energy Environmental Management Los Alamos Field Office has prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment for the Chromium Plume Control Interim Measure and Plume-Center Characterization at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The proposedaction may include well pad and access road installation and maintenance, piezometer placement, and pipeline placement in the 100-year

Transmission Line Segment Modification, Line 3004, Structures 39, 39A, and 40 Program or Field Office: Southwestern Power Administration Location(s) (City/County/State): Springfield, Christian County, Missouri SWPA F450.4 (Rev. 2/16) ProposedAction Description: Southwestern Power Administration proposes to modify and relocate a small seqment of transmission line to accommodate and provide safety clearance for a retail development project in an urbanized section of Springfield, Missouri.

The South Tank Farm Plume (STFP) is listed under the 'Remediation of Other Contamination Sources' Interim Response Action (IRA) sites under the Final Technical Program Plan FY88-FY92 and the Federal Facility Agreement. The process and guidelines used to assess alternatives, produce this Proposed Decision Document, and implement this IRA are specified in and conducted in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement. The purposes of the Proposed Decision Document for Other Contamination Sources IRAs are to: (a) state the objective of the IRA; (b) discuss Interim Response Action alternatives, if any, that were considered; (c) provide the rationale for the alternative selected; (d) present the final ARAR decision; (e) summarize the significant comments received regarding the IRA and responses to those comments; and (f) establish an IRA Deadline for completion of the IRA, if appropriate. Each of the above mentioned issues is addressed in this document.

2-1 CHAPTER 2 PROPOSEDACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Some types of experiments are best (or only) performed deep underground. For this reason, scientists have considered WIPP as a potential site for these types of experiments and have sought permission from DOE to conduct several types of experiments there. As an example, astrophysicists are searching for very small particles with no charge called neutrinos. These particles are so small that they typically pass through the Earth. The only way to

This document presents a Proposed Plan and an Environmental Assessment for an interim remedial action to be undertaken by the US Department of Energy (DOE) within Operable Unit 3 (OU3) at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP). This proposed plan provides site background information, describes the remedial alternatives being considered, presents a comparative evaluation of the alternatives and a rationnale for the identification of DOE`s preferred alternative, evaluates the potential environmental and public health effects associated with the alternatives, and outlines the public`s role in helping DOE and the EPA to make the final decision on a remedy.

The purpose of this Site Rehabilitation Completion Report is to present the post-active-remediation monitoring results for the Northeast Site and to propose No Further Action with Controls. This document includes information required by Chapter 62-780.750(4)(d), 62-780.750(6), and 62-780.600(8)(a)27 Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Closure Monitoring Plan for the Northeast Site and 4.5 Acre Site (DOE 2009a) describes the approach for post-active-remediation monitoring. The Young - Rainey Science, Technology, and Research Center (STAR Center) is a former U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility constructed in the mid-1950s. The 99-acre STAR Center is located in Largo, Florida. The Northeast Site is located in the northeast corner of the STAR Center. The Northeast Site meets all the requirements for an RMO II closure—No Further Action with Controls. DOE is nearing completion of a restrictive covenant for the Northeast Site. DOE has completed post-active-remediation monitoring at the Northeast Site as of September 2012. No additional monitoring will be conducted.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0976) of the proposed corrective action for the Northeast Site at the Pinellas Plant in Largo, Florida. The Northeast Site contains contaminated groundwater that would be removed, treated, and discharged to the Pinellas County Sewer System. Based on the analyses in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposedaction is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.4321 et.seq. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required and the DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Proposed Settlement for Hanford Cleanup U.S. Department of Energy ● Washington State Department of Ecology * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency What's this proposed settlement about? Public Comment The Tri-Party Agreement agencies want your feedback. The public comment period is from October 1 through December 11, 2009. These new commitments would address important activities that are needed to protect human health and the environment. The settlement will impose a new, enforceable and

The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to proposed federal actions in the United States, including its territories and possessions, that may have transboundary effects extending across the border and affecting another country's environment. While the guidance arises in the context of negotiations undertaken with the governments of Mexico and Canada to develop an agreement on transboundary environmental impact assessment in North America, the guidance pertains to all federal agency actions that are normally subject to NEPA, whether covered by an international agreement or not.

The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to proposed federal actions in the United States, including its territories and possessions, that may have transboundary effects extending across the border and affecting another country's environment. While the guidance arises in the context of negotiations undertaken with the governments of Mexico and Canada to develop an agreement on transboundary environmental impact assessment in North America, the guidance pertains to all federal agency actions that are normally subject to NEPA, whether covered by an international agreement or not.

The Title I groundwater standards for inactive uranium mill tailings sites, which were promulgated on January 5, 1983, by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project, were remanded to the EPA on September 3, 1985, by the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court instructed the EPA to compile general groundwater standards for all sites. On September 24, 1987, the EPA published proposed standards in response to the remand. This Summary Report includes an evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed EPA groundwater standards on the UMTRA Project as well as a discussion of the DOE's position on the proposed standards. This report is accompanied by a detailed Technical Report and Appendices which provide supporting information and analyses. This Summary Report results from a study undertaken to: determine the impact of the proposed standards on the UMTRA Project; and recommend provisions for the implementation of the final standards that will minimize adverse impact to the conduct of the UMTRA Project while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. Specifically, the following were considered: the flexibility of the proposed standards; interpretations of the proposed standards; the extent of aquifer restoration that may be required to implement the proposed standards at each site; the costs of aquifer restoration; and design changes necessary to meet the standards.

The Title I groundwater standards for inactive uranium mill tailings sites, which were promulgated on January 5, 1983, by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project, were remanded to the EPA on September 3, 1985, by the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court instructed the EPA to compile general groundwater standards for all Title I sites. On September 24, 1987, the EPA published proposed standards (52FR36000-36008) in response to the remand. This report includes an evaluation of the potential effects of the proposed EPA groundwater standards on the UMTRA Project, as well as a discussion of the DOE's position on the proposed standards. The report also contains and appendix which provides supporting information and cost analyses. In order to assess the impacts of the proposed EPA standards, this report summarizes the proposed EPA standards in Section 2.0. The next three sections assess the impacts of the three parts of the EPA standards: Subpart A considers disposal sites; Subpart B is concerned with restoration at processing sites; and Subpart C addresses supplemental standards. Section 6.0 integrates previous sections into a recommendations section. Section 7.0 contains the DOE response to questions posed by the EPA in the preamble to the proposed standards. 6 refs., 5 figs., 3 tabs.

This Proposed Plan addresses the remediation of groundwater contamination at the chemical plant area of the Weldon Spring site in Weldon Spring, Missouri. The site is located approximately 48 km (30 mi) west of St. Louis in St. Charles County . Remedial activities at the site will be conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Army (DA), conducted a joint remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to allow for a comprehensive evaluation of groundwater conditions at the Weldon Spring chemical plant area and the Weldon Spring ordnance works area, which is an Army site adjacent to the chemical plant area. Consistent with DOE policy, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) values have been incorporated into the CERCLA process. That is, the analysis conducted and presented in the RVFS reports included an evaluation of environmental impacts that is comparable to that performed under NEPA. This Proposed Plan summarizes information about chemical plant area groundwater that is presented in the following documents: (1) The Remedial Investigation (RI), which presents information on the nature and extent of contamination; (2) The Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), which evaluates impacts to human health and the environment that could occur if no cleanup action of the groundwater were taken (DOE and DA 1997a); and (3) The Feasibility Study (FS) and the Supplemental FS, which develop and evaluate remedial action alternatives for groundwater remediation.

-1 ACTION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this action plan is to establish the overall plan for hazardous waste permitting, meeting closure and postclosure requirements, and remedial action under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Agreement shall be taken in accordance

RAPIDD Proposals RAPIDD Proposals Print Tuesday, 21 August 2012 14:41 The combined process for Rapid Access Proposals, Industry, and Director's Discretion (RAPIDD) beam time accommodates users who require limited or rapid access to ALS beam time. There are a number of proposal types that are available on a variety of beamlines, as described below. Log in to ALSHub to submit a RAPIDD proposal. The RAPIDD process is not suitable for users requiring significant beam time for an extended program of

Notes and Action Items Notes and Action Items ERSUG Action Items from June 1996 meeting at Germantown, MD Get DOE staff on mailers for broadcast of ERSUG issues Responsibility: Kendall and Kitchens Review and comment on ERSUG Proposal to SAC Responsibility: All of ERSUG Comments to Rick Kendall by July 17th email: ra_kendall@pnl.gov Fax : (509) 375-6631 Review and comment on Requirements Document "Greenbook" Responsibility: All of ERSUG Comments to Rick Kendall by August 7th email:

RAPIDD Proposals Print The combined process for Rapid Access Proposals, Industry, and Director's Discretion (RAPIDD) beam time accommodates users who require limited or rapid access to ALS beam time. There are a number of proposal types that are available on a variety of beamlines, as described below. Log in to ALSHub to submit a RAPIDD proposal. The RAPIDD process is not suitable for users requiring significant beam time for an extended program of research or those wanting to perform complex

The order sets forth Department of Energy (DOE) requirements and responsibilities for the receipt, processing, and review of unsolicited proposals (USPs). To ensure that those submitting USPs are notified in a timely manner of the status (e.g., pending, accepted for funding, or declined) of their Supersedes DOE O 542.2. Certified 12-28-06.

This Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) focuses on mitigation commitments stated in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 1 (NPR-1). Specific commitments and mitigation implementation actions are listed in Appendix A-Mitigation Actions, and form the central focus of this MAP. They will be updated as needed to allow for organizational, regulatory, or policy changes. It is the intent of DOE to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental, safety, and health laws and regulations. Eighty-six specific commitments were identified in the SEIS and associated ROD which pertain to continued operation of NPR-1 with petroleum production at the Maximum Efficient Rate (MER). The mitigation measures proposed are expected to reduce impacts as much as feasible, however, as experience is gained in actual implementation of these measures, some changes may be warranted.

Environmental professionals today must address many issues that might not have been foreseen by developers of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) or the President`s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. One issue is the definition of the no action alternative for NEPA documentation of continuing actions. The CEQ regulations do not define the no action alternative, but merely state that NEPA analyses shall {open_quotes}include the alternative of no action{close_quotes}. For NEPA analyses of newly proposedactions, the practical definition of the no action alternative is clear (i.e., the agency will not implement the proposedaction or alternative actions). However, the practical definition for NEPA analyses of continuing actions is not so clear. To clarify the definition of the no action alternative for continuing actions, particularly those that involve agency decisions about relicensing existing projects or continuing to operate existing programs or facilities. In trying to clarify the definition of the no action alternative for continuing actions, this paper examines the function of the no action alternative for NEPA analyses in general. Pertinent issues include how the definition of the no action alternative affects the selection of the baseline for environmental analysis and whether inclusion of the no action alternative really forces agencies to consider no action as a realistic alternative. To address these issues, this paper begins with a discussion of relevant legal decisions involving the no action alternative in NEPA analyses. The paper then examines some agency NEPA regulations and recent NEPA documents to provide examples of how some agencies address the no action alternative for continuing actions. Finally, the paper suggests definitions of the no action alternative for continuing actions and methods for addressing no action as a realistic alternative.

Mitigation Action Plan EA-1934: Mitigation Action Plan Expansion of Active Borrow Areas, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington This Mitigation Action Plan is an integral part of the Finding of No Significant Impact for the proposedaction within the Expansion of Active Borrow Areas, Hanford Site. The proposedaction would expand 11active borrow pits on the Hanford Site that were included in the previous Environmental Assessments (DOE/EA-1403, DOE/EA-1454), and establish 1 new borrow source. This

On July 27, 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a regulatory framework (55 FR 30798) for responding to releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste management units (SWMUs) at facilities seeking permits or permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The proposed rule, `Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Facilities`, would create a new Subpart S under the 40 CFR 264 regulations, and outlines requirements for conducting RCRA Facility Investigations, evaluating potential remedies, and selecting and implementing remedies (i.e., corrective measures) at RCRA facilities. EPA anticipates instances where releases or suspected releases of hazardous wastes or constituents from SWMUs identified in a RCRA Facility Assessment, and subsequently addressed as part of required RCRA Facility Investigations, will be found to be non-existent or non-threatening to human health or the environment. Such releases may require no further action. For such situations, EPA proposed a mechanism for making a determination that no further corrective action is needed. This mechanism is known as a Determination of No Further Action (DNFA) (55 FR 30875). This information Brief describes what a DNFA is and discusses the mechanism for making a DNFA. This is one of a series of Information Briefs on RCRA corrective action.

Revised 11-2009 30-Day Federal Register Notice - Proposed [6450-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will {enter a brief description of the

30-Day Federal Register Notice - Proposed [6450-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance, a proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection will {enter a brief description of the collection that

Proposed [6450-01-P] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) do not define the no-action alternative, stating only that EPA analyses shall include the alternative of no action. The definition of the no-action alternative for newly proposedactions seems clear. However, for continuing actions, the meaning of the no-action alternative is ambiguous. This article examines the overall function of the no-action alternative for NEPA analyses of continuing actions. It begins with a discussion of the conflicting definitions of the no-action alternative for continuing activities, including CEQ regulations and guidelines related to the no-action alternative and legal decisions that have helped establish precedence for defining no action. A review of NEPA regulations and guidelines of 10 federal agencies shows how different agencies define no-action for continuing actions. Review of six recent NEPA documents on continuing actions reveals how their definition of the no-action alternative promote or impede informed decision-making.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for compliance with an increasingly complex spectrum of environmental regulations. One of the most complex programs is the corrective action program proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). The proposed regulations were published on July 27, 1990. The proposed Subpart S rule creates a comprehensive program for investigating and remediating releases of hazardous wastes and hazardous waste constituents from solid waste management units (SWMUs) at facilities permitted to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes. This proposed rule directly impacts many DOE facilities which conduct such activities. This guidance document explains the entire RCRA Corrective Action process as outlined by the proposed Subpart S rule, and provides guidance intended to assist those persons responsible for implementing RCRA Corrective Action at DOE facilities.

Mitigation Action Plan EA-1915: Mitigation Action Plan Proposed Conveyance of Land at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington DOE prepared a Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the Finding of No Significant Impact for DOE's EA. For more information on this project, see the project webpage: http://energy.gov/nepa/ea-1915-proposed-conveyance-land-hanford-site-ric... EA-1915-MAP-2015.pdf (86.09 KB) More Documents & Publications EA-1915: Final Environmental Assessment EA-1915:

Unsolicited Proposals The Department of Energy's (DOE's) central point of receipt for all Unsolicited Proposals is the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) as outlined in the link below which includes all DOE Program Research Areas. The "Guide for the Submission of Unsolicited Proposals" provides more information on the unsolicited proposal process. DOE encourages organizations and individuals to submit self-generated, unsolicited proposals that are relevant to DOE's research

Contract No. DE-AC27-08RV14800 Modification No. A015 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS 1. INTRODUCTION This document contains instructions to the contractor for the preparation of a proposal in response to the modification of the contract which defines work that will be funded by and performed under the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). The contractor shall provide a written proposal consisting of a Technical Proposal and a Cost and Fee Proposal. The

Trident Call for Proposals Trident Call for Proposals Enabling world-class science in high-energy density physics and fundamental laser-matter interactions Contact Operations Team Leader Randy Johnson (505) 665-5089 Email Trident Governing Board Contact Ray Leeper (505) 667-3653 Email Call for Proposals 2015-2016 The Trident Laser Facility is accepting proposals for experiments to be performed at the facility during the period October 2015 through September 2016. All proposals submitted are

Proposals | FY2017 pRad: Call for ProposalsProposal Submission Deadline: 5:00 pm (MST) Wednesday, March 16, 2016. PAC Review: April 6th and 7th, 2016. Call for Proposals: Proton Radiography FY17 The Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) is issuing a Call for Proposals for experiments for the Proton Radiography Facility (pRad) during Fiscal Year 2017. Proposals for FY18 experiments that will not be ready to be performed FY17 will be considered. The proton radiography facility uses 800 MeV

Proposals | FY2016 pRad: Call for ProposalsProposal Submission Deadline: 5:00 pm (MST) Wednesday, March 16, 2016. PAC Review: April 6th and 7th, 2016. Call for Proposals: Proton Radiography FY17 The Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) is issuing a Call for Proposals for experiments for the Proton Radiography Facility (pRad) during Fiscal Year 2017. Proposals for FY18 experiments that will not be ready to be performed FY17 will be considered. The proton radiography facility uses 800 MeV

General User Proposals (GUPs) General User Proposals (GUPs) Print Tuesday, 01 June 2010 09:36 General Users are granted beam time through a peer review proposal process. They may use beamlines and endstations provided by the ALS or the Participating Research Team (PRT) that operates the beamline. Before Submitting a Proposal Review the ALS Beamlines Directory to learn about the research capabilities of individual beamlines at the ALS. Contact the beamline scientist or the local contact listed in

call for proposal submissions Call for Proposal Submissions The Jupiter Laser Facility (JLF) announces that the Request for Proposals for the JLF User Program for experiments in Calendar Year 2017, January through December, is open. Jupiter is a multi-platform, intermediate-scale laser user facility located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Proposals will be accepted for the laser platforms Titan, Janus, and COMET. Information and submission instructions are available at

General User Proposals (GUPs) Print General Users are granted beam time through a peer review proposal process. They may use beamlines and endstations provided by the ALS or the Participating Research Team (PRT) that operates the beamline. Before Submitting a Proposal Review the ALS Beamlines Directory to learn about the research capabilities of individual beamlines at the ALS. Contact the beamline scientist or the local contact listed in the tables, for additional information about the

Requests for Proposals Requests for Proposals World-class experts and capabilities countering all aspects of explosive threats, and aiming predominantly at enhanced detection capabilities. What LACED cannot do LACED is prohibited by US Federal Law from responding to RFPs on its own or as a co-respondent. Organizations responding to a RFP can reference a "unique" capability or service available at LACED in an RFP proposal response. Such a reference should specify that LACED

Proposal Scores Print Scoring Proposals are scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best score and 5 the worst. Reviewers are requested to use the following ranking schema: Must do High Priority Medium Priority Low priority Don't do Beam time is assigned based on each proposal's score in relation to all other proposals for a given beamline. For beamlines where beam time requests exceed available beam time, a cutoff score is assigned after which no beam time is allocated. Individual Beam

This Guide was developed to assist the Department of Energy (DOE) organizations and contractors in the development, implementation, and followup of corrective action programs utilizing the feedback and improvement core safety function within DOE's Integrated Safety Management System. This Guide outlines some of the basic principles, concepts, and lessons learned that DOE managers and contractors might consider when implementing corrective action programs based on their specific needs. Canceled by DOE G 414.1-2B. Does not cancel other directives.

energy.gov/betterbuildings Climate Action Champion: Technical Assistance to the City of Seattle Planning for Seattle's new Building Energy Code Overview The City of Seattle, identified as a Climate Action Champion (CAC) by the Department of Energy (DOE), is revising its 2012 Energy Code, already one of the most progressive in the country. Seattle has made a pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050. Seattle received technical assistance from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in order to

7963 Vol. 79, No. 128 Thursday, July 3, 2014 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 429 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0039] Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee: Cancellation of Open Meetings AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of cancellation of open meetings. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the cancellation of open meetings for the Commercial and Industrial Pumps Working Group of the Appliance

8019 Vol. 80, No. 127 Thursday, July 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, and X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information (RFI). SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested

28736 Vol. 81, No. 90 Tuesday, May 10, 2016 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXIII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, and X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information (RFI). SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested

75798 Vol. 76, No. 233 Monday, December 5, 2011 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXIII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties

28518 Vol. 77, No. 94 Tuesday, May 15, 2012 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by the President on January 18, 2011, the Department of Energy (Department or DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to

31548 Vol. 77, No. 103 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 5 CFR Chapter XXII 10 CFR Chapters II, III, X Reducing Regulatory Burden AGENCY: Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period. SUMMARY: This notice announces that the period for submitting comments on the Department of Energy's (DOE) request for information (RFI) issued as part of its implementation of Executive Order 13563, ''Improving Regulation and Regulatory

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January 15 July 15 AP Proposal Submission Guidelines Step 1: Contact

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print Thursday, 13 May 2010 11:53 An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January 15 July 15 AP Proposal Submission Guidelines Step 1: Contact

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January 15 July 15 AP Proposal Submission Guidelines Step 1: Contact

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January 15 July 15 AP Proposal Submission Guidelines Step 1: Contact

Approved Program Proposals (AP) Print An Approved Program (AP) enables an investigator, or a group of investigators, to receive a set percentage of beam time to partner with ALS staff both to carry out an extended research program and to develop new tools and/or new research protocols that will be made available to the general user population. APs are arranged for a period of up to three years. AP Proposal Submission Deadlines January 15 July 15 AP Proposal Submission Guidelines Step 1: Contact

Proposal Study Panels Print Two Proposal Study Panels (PSPs) exist at the ALS: one for the general sciences and one for structural biology. The role of the PSPs is desribed in User Policy. Note: Users are urged NOT to contact any members of the panels directly. Current members of the general sciences PSP, as of April 2016, are Masa Fukuto, Brookhaven National Laboratory Carol Hirschmugl, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Peter Johnson (chair), Brookhaven National Laboratory Apurva Mehta, SLAC

Proposal Study Panels Print Two Proposal Study Panels (PSPs) exist at the ALS: one for the general sciences and one for structural biology. The role of the PSPs is desribed in User Policy. Note: Users are urged NOT to contact any members of the panels directly. Current members of the general sciences PSP, as of April 2016, are Masa Fukuto, Brookhaven National Laboratory Carol Hirschmugl, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Peter Johnson (chair), Brookhaven National Laboratory Apurva Mehta, SLAC

Proposal Study Panels Print Two Proposal Study Panels (PSPs) exist at the ALS: one for the general sciences and one for structural biology. The role of the PSPs is desribed in User Policy. Note: Users are urged NOT to contact any members of the panels directly. Current members of the general sciences PSP, as of April 2016, are Masa Fukuto, Brookhaven National Laboratory Carol Hirschmugl, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Peter Johnson (chair), Brookhaven National Laboratory Apurva Mehta, SLAC

Proposal Study Panels Print Two Proposal Study Panels (PSPs) exist at the ALS: one for the general sciences and one for structural biology. The role of the PSPs is desribed in User Policy. Note: Users are urged NOT to contact any members of the panels directly. Current members of the general sciences PSP, as of April 2016, are Masa Fukuto, Brookhaven National Laboratory Carol Hirschmugl, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Peter Johnson (chair), Brookhaven National Laboratory Apurva Mehta, SLAC

This document contains planned actions to correct the deficiencies identified in the Pre-Tiger Team Self-Assessment (PTTSA), January 1991, of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL -- Albuquerque, New Mexico; Tonopah, Nevada; and Kauai, Hawaii). The Self-Assessment was conducted by a Self-Assessment Working Group consisting of 19 department managers, with support from Environment, Safety, and Health (ES H) professionals, from October through December 1990. Findings from other past audits, dating back to 1985, were reviewed and compared with the PTTSA findings to determine if additional findings, key findings, or root causes were warranted. The resulting ES H Action Plan and individual planned actions were prepared by the ES H Action Plan Project Group with assistance from the Program owners/authors during February and March 1991. The plan was reviewed by SNL Management in April 1991. This document serves as a planning instrument for the Laboratories to aid in the scoping and sizing of activities related to ES H compliance for the coming five years. It will be modified as required to ensure a workload/funding balance and to address the findings resulting from the Tiger Team assessment at SNL, Albuquerque. The process of producing this document has served well to prepare SNL, Albuquerque, for the coming task of producing the required post-Tiger Team action plan document. 8 tabs.

Notes and Action Items Notes and Action Items Report on the NUGEX business meeting of June 6, 2000, in Oak Ridge Minute notes by Bas Braams First of all, many thanks to the organizers of the preceding NUG meeting: Roberta Boucher, David Dean, Brian Hingerty, Bill Kramer, Donald Spong and Malcolm Stocks. Likewise thanks to Brian Hingerty and Mike Minkoff for organizing the Users Helping Users events, and to Tom DeBoni, Osni Marques, Jeffrey Squyres and David Turner for the NERSC training classes.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment evaluating proposed environmental remediation activity at Argonne National Laboratory-East (ANL-E), Argonne, Illinois. The environmental remediation work would (1) reduce, eliminate, or prevent the release of contaminants from a number of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and two radiologically contaminated sites located in areas contiguous with SWMUs, and (2) decrease the potential for exposure of the public, ANL-E employees, and wildlife to such contaminants. The actionsproposed for SWMUs are required to comply with the RCRA corrective action process and corrective action requirements of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; the actionsproposed are also required to reduce the potential for continued contaminant release. Based on the analysis in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposedaction does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

686 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules IV. Conclusion For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC is denying PRM- 50-106. The NRC is denying this petition because the current regulations already address environmental qualification in both mild and design basis event conditions of electrical equipment located both inside and outside of the containment building that is important to safety, and the petitioners did not provide significant new or

The Department of Energy`s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is charged with carrying out key sections of EPACT and Executive Order 12903, to make the Federal government operate more efficiently. A congressionally mandated energy and water conservation audit program is one component of this growing DOE program. This paper traces the SAVEnergy Action Plan program throughout its development from (1) identifying projects and Agency champions, (2) establishing a protocol and fitting auditors into the program, (3) developing a data base to track the audits and measure their success, and (4) evaluating the process, learning from mistakes, and charting and transferring successes. A major tenet of the SAVEnergy program is to proactively prescreen all audit activities to ensure that -- where audits are done and Action Plans completed -- projects will be done.

The EA evaluates the proposedaction of modifying the DIII-D fusion facility and conducting related research activities at the GA San Diego site over 1995-1999 under DOE contract number DE-ACO3-89ER51114. The proposedaction is need to advance magnetic fusion research for future generation fusion devices such as ITER and TPX. It was determined that the proposedaction is not a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment according to NEPA; therefore a finding of no significant impact is made and an environmental impact statement is not required.

Baker and Williams Warehouses Site in New York, New York, 7997 - 7993 Department of Energy Former Sites Restoration Division Oak Ridge Operations Office November 7 995 CERTIFICATION DOCKET FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMED AT THE BAKER AND WILLIAMS WAREHOUSES SITE IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 1991-1993 NOVEMBER 1995 Prepared for United States Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office Under Contract No. DE-AC05-910R21949 BY Bechtel National, Inc. Oak Ridge, Tennessee Bechtel Job No. 14501 __

Interim Action Determination Processing of Plutonium Materials from the DOE Standard 3013 Surveillance Program in H-Canyon at the Savannah River Site The Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SPD SEIS, DOE/EIS-0283-S2). DOE is evaluating alternatives for disposition of non-pit plutonium that is surplus to the national security needs of the United States. Although the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved Critical

Department of Energy After a regulatory action has been completed, Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to identify the substantive changes between the draft submitted to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and the action subsequently announced, and to identify those changes made at the suggestions or recommendation of OIRA. CSC NOPR Compare (3.91 MB) More Documents & Publications CONVENTION ON SUPPLEMENTARY COMPENSATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Changes

This Corrective Action Plan provides methods for implementing the approved corrective action alternative as provided in the Corrective Action Decision Document for the Central Nevada Test Area (CNTA), Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 417 (DOE/NV, 1999). The CNTA is located in the Hot Creek Valley in Nye County, Nevada, approximately 137 kilometers (85 miles) northeast of Tonopah, Nevada. The CNTA consists of three separate land withdrawal areas commonly referred to as UC-1, UC-3, and UC-4, all of which are accessible to the public. CAU 417 consists of 34 Corrective Action Sites (CASs). Results of the investigation activities completed in 1998 are presented in Appendix D of the Corrective Action Decision Document (DOE/NV, 1999). According to the results, the only Constituent of Concern at the CNTA is total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Of the 34 CASs, corrective action was proposed for 16 sites in 13 CASs. In fiscal year 1999, a Phase I Work Plan was prepared for the construction of a cover on the UC-4 Mud Pit C to gather information on cover constructibility and to perform site management activities. With Nevada Division of Environmental Protection concurrence, the Phase I field activities began in August 1999. A multi-layered cover using a Geosynthetic Clay Liner as an infiltration barrier was constructed over the UC-4 Mud Pit. Some TPH impacted material was relocated, concrete monuments were installed at nine sites, signs warning of site conditions were posted at seven sites, and subsidence markers were installed on the UC-4 Mud Pit C cover. Results from the field activities indicated that the UC-4 Mud Pit C cover design was constructable and could be used at the UC-1 Central Mud Pit (CMP). However, because of the size of the UC-1 CMP this design would be extremely costly. An alternative cover design, a vegetated cover, is proposed for the UC-1 CMP.

The goal of the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee (SWISC) process is to develop a long-term waste management system for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), to be in place by 1996, which is environmentally, socially, economically and technically sound. This background report is being released to the public and member Regional Councils to facilitate input to the SWISC planning process. The report documents current reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives in the GTA, identifies opportunities for coordination and collaboration among the GTA communities, and develops an action plan for improving the effectiveness of the reduction, reuse and recycling efforts within the GTA.

We present a computational approach to radical rhetoric that leverages the co-expression of rhetoric and action features in discourse to identify violent intent. The approach combines text mining and machine learning techniques with insights from Frame Analysis and theories that explain the emergence of violence in terms of moral disengagement, the violation of sacred values and social isolation in order to build computational models that identify messages from terrorist sources and estimate their proximity to an attack. We discuss a specific application of this approach to a body of documents from and about radical and terrorist groups in the Middle East and present the results achieved.

This information brief explains how RCRA corrective action and closure processes affect one another. It examines the similarities and differences between corrective action and closure, regulators` interests in RCRA facilities undergoing closure, and how the need to perform corrective action affects the closure of DOE`s permitted facilities and interim status facilities.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental consequences of the proposed conversion and operation of the existing Solar One Facility in Daggett, Ca, near the city of Barstow, to a nitrate salt based heat transfer system, Solar Two. The EA also addresses the alternatives of different solar conversion technologies and alternative sites and discusses a no action alternative. A primary objective of the Solar Two Project is to demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of a solar central receiver power plant using molten salt as the thermal storage and transport fluid medium. If successful, the information gathered from the Solar Two Project could be used to design larger commercial solar power plants.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluating the construction and equipping of the proposed Advanced Technology Research Center (ATRC) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Based on the analysis in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposedaction does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) recommended that the US Department of Energy (DOE) perform an expedited response action (ERA) for the Sodium Dichromate Barrel Disposal Landfill. The ERA lead regulatory agency is Ecology and EPA is the support agency. The ERA was categorized as non-time-critical, which required preparation of an engineering evaluation and cost analysis (EE/CA). The EE/CA was included in the ERA proposal. The EE/CA is a rapid, focused evaluation of available technologies using specific screening factors to assess feasibility, appropriateness, and cost. The ERA goal is to reduce the potential for any contaminant migration from the landfill to the soil column, groundwater, and Columbia River. Since the Sodium Dichromate Barrel Disposal Landfill is the only waste site within the operable unit, the removal action may be the final remediation of the 100-IU-4 Operable Unit. This ERA process started in March 1992. The ERA proposal went through a parallel review process with Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC), DOE Richland Operations (RL), EPA, Ecology, and a 30-day public comment period. Ecology and EPA issued an Action Agreement Memorandum in March 1993 (Appendix A). The memorandum directed excavation of all anomalies and disposal of the collected materials at the Hanford Site Central Landfill. Primary field activities were completed by the end of April 1993. Final waste disposal of a minor quantity of hazardous waste was completed in July 1993.

Department of Energy Finding of No Significant Impact and Mitigation Action Plan EA-2006: Finding of No Significant Impact and Mitigation Action Plan Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program Bonneville Power Administration issued a FONSI and a floodplain and wetland statement of findings for a proposed program of actions to help restore ecological structure, function, and biodiversity within the Columbia River estuary. The mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Action Plan and

Describes the four near-term strategies selected by the Guam Energy Task Force during action planning workshops conducted in March 2013, and outlines the steps being taken to implement those strategies. Each strategy addresses one of the energy sectors identified in the earlier Guam strategic energy plan as being an essential component of diversifying Guam's fuel sources and reducing fossil energy consumption 20% by 2020. The four energy strategies selected are: (1) expanding public outreach on energy efficiency and conservation, (2) establishing a demand-side management revolving loan program, (3) exploring waste-to-energy options, and (4) influencing the transportation sector via anti-idling legislation, vehicle registration fees, and electric vehicles.

From the generalized Palatini's actionproposed recently in [1], we show that we can obtain the standard effective action of the theory of Einstein-Cartan coupled to the fermionic matter without the usual current-current interaction. Therefore, an effective action which is free from the Barbero-Immirzi parameter [2] and the non-vanishing torsion resulting from the presence of the minimal coupling of fermionic matter. This establishes the equivalence between the theories of general relativity and Einstein-Cartan minimally coupled to fermions [3].

Criteria for PDIL Proposal The selection/decision criteria used by the NCPV Business Development Team are the following: 1. Quality and Relevance of the Proposed Technical Plan (30%) * Technology impact with industry and likelihood of success. Demonstrated benefits of success to both the proposer and NREL to meet the DOE SunShot goals. * Proposed task descriptions and time line. Clear demonstration of entrance and exit strategies in the PDIL. * Extent to which the Proposer and NREL can rapidly

The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from remedial action at the Maybell uranium mill tailings site near Maybell, Colorado. A biological assessment and a floodplain/wetlands assessment are included as part of this EA. This report and attachments describe the proposedaction, affected environment, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed remedial action, including impacts to threatened and endangered species listed or proposed for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from remedial action at the Maybell uranium mill tailings site near Maybell, Colorado. A biological assessment (Attachment 1) and a floodplain/wetlands attachments describe the proposedaction, affected environment, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed remedial action, including impacts to threatened and endangered species listed or proposed for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

proposal submission instructions CY2017 Proposal Submission Instructions A proposal is necessary for shot-time allocated on the Titan, Janus, and COMET laser platforms at the Jupiter Laser Facility (JLF). The CY2017 period is January through December 2017. JLF will be closed until March 2017 for maintenance and upgrades. Experiment time will be allotted in 4-week Experimental Run Periods, with one-week maintenance breaks between experiments. The schedule will be determined after proposals have

Document describes the final proposal requirements for consideration by an energy service company (ESCO) for an agency’s Request for Quote/Notice of Opportunity or final proposal. If selected to perform a site investment grade audit, the ESCO will be required to present the findings from the IGA and a project price to the agency in the form of a final proposal.

This document summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period of January-June 1996. The report includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violations sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to the enforcement actions.

This proposed remedial action plan incorporates the results of detailed investigation of geologic, geomorphic, and seismic conditions at the proposed disposal site. The proposed remedial action will consist of relocating the uranium mill tailings, contaminated vicinity property materials, demolition debris, and windblown/waterborne materials to a permanent repository at the proposed Burro Canyon disposal cell. The proposed disposal site will be geomorphically stable. Seismic design parameters were developed for the geotechnical analyses of the proposed cell. Cell stability was analyzed to ensure long-term performance of the disposal cell in meeting design standards, including slope stability, settlement, and liquefaction potential. The proposed cell cover and erosion protection features were also analyzed and designed to protect the RRM (residual radioactive materials) against surface water and wind erosion. The location of the proposed cell precludes the need for permanent drainage or interceptor ditches. Rock to be used on the cell top-, side-, and toeslopes was sized to withstand probable maximum precipitation events.

The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from remedial action at the Maybell uranium mill tailings site near Maybell, Colorado. A biological assessment (Attachment 1) and a floodplain/wetlands assessment (Assessment 2) are included as part of this EA. The following sections and attachments describe the proposedaction, affected environment, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed remedial action, including impacts to threatened and endangered species listed or proposed for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Describes the five near-term strategies selected by the American Samoa Renewable Energy Committee (ASREC) during action planning workshops conducted in May 2013, and outlines the actions being taken to implement those strategies. Each option is tied to a priority identified in the earlier draft American Samoa Strategic Energy Plan as being an essential component of reducing American Samoa'spetroleum energy consumption. The actions described for each strategy provide a roadmap to facilitate the implementation of each strategy. This document is intended to evolve along with the advancement of the projects, and will be updated to reflect progress.

This Information Brief describes the work plans that owners/operators may have to prepare in conjunction with the performance of corrective action for compliance with RCRA guidelines. In general, the more complicated the performance of corrective action appears from the remedial investigation and other analyses, the more likely it is that the regulator will impose work plan requirements. In any case, most owner/operators will prepare work plans in conjunction with the performance of corrective action processes as a matter of best engineering management practices.

A method for triggering an action of at least one downhole device on a downhole network integrated into a downhole tool string synchronized to an event comprises determining latency, sending a latency adjusted signal, and performing the action. The latency is determined between a control device and the at least one downhole device. The latency adjusted signal for triggering an action is sent to the downhole device. The action is performed downhole synchronized to the event. A preferred method for determining latency comprises the steps: a control device sends a first signal to the downhole device; after receiving the signal, the downhole device sends a response signal to the control device; and the control device analyzes the time from sending the signal to receiving the response signal.

This Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Remedial Action Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.2 of the INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility Remedial Action Work Plan. The agency prefinal inspection of the ICDF Staging, Storage, Sizing, and Treatment Facility (SSSTF) was completed in June of 2005. Accordingly, this report has been developed to describe the construction activities completed at the ICDF along with a description of any modifications to the design originally approved for the facility. In addition, this report provides a summary of the major documents prepared for the design and construction of the ICDF, a discussion of relevant requirements and remedial action objectives, the total costs associated with the development and operation of the facility to date, and identification of necessary changes to the Agency-approved INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility Remedial Action Work Plan and the ICDF Complex Operations and Maintenance Plan.

Energy Department officials spent National Energy Action Month on the road, meeting and learning from Americans who are advancing our energy security, growing the economy and protecting the environment.

In an earlier paper "Complexity Equals Action" we conjectured that the quantum computational complexity of a holographic state is given by the classical action of a region in the bulk (the `Wheeler-DeWitt' patch). We provide calculations for the results quoted in that paper, explain how it fits into a broader (tensor) network of ideas, and elaborate on the hypothesis that black holes are the fastest computers in nature.

This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period (July - December 1996) and includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violation sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to-these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions.

This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period (January - June 1997) and includes copies of Orders and Notices of Violation sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions.

The potential impacts associated with the transportation of hazardous materials are important to shippers, carriers, and the general public. This is particularly true for shipments of radioactive material. The shippers are primarily concerned with safety, security, efficiency, and equipment requirements. The carriers are concerned with the potential impact that radioactive shipments may have on their operations--particularly if such materials are involved in an accident. The general public has also expressed concerns regarding the safety of transporting radioactive and other hazardous materials through their communities. Because transportation routes are a central concern in hazardous material transport, the prediction of likely routes is the first step toward resolution of these issues. In response to these routing needs, several models have been developed over the past fifteen years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The HIGHWAY routing model is used to predict routes for truck transportation, the INTERLINE routing model is used to predict both rail and barge routes, and the AIRPORT locator model is used to determine airports with specified criteria near a specific location. As part of the ongoing improvement of the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Environmental Management Transportation Management Division`s (EM-261) computer systems and development efforts, a Baseline Requirements Assessment Session on the HIGHWAY, INTERLINE, and AIRPORT models was held at ORNL on April 27, 1994. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the existing capabilities of the models and data bases and to review enhancements of the models and data bases to expand their usefulness. The results of the Baseline Requirements Assessment Section will be discussed in this report. The discussions pertaining to the different models are contained in separate sections.

3: Removal Action Part 3: Removal Action Question: When may removal actions be initiated? Answer: Removal actions may be initiated when DOE determines that the action will prevent, minimize, stabilize, or eliminate a risk to health or the environment. The NCP specifies that the determination that a risk to health or the environment is appropriate for removal action should be based on: actual or potential exposure of humans, animals, or the food chain the presence of contained hazardous

In this Memorandum, the Council on Environmental Quality provides guidance on the extent to which agencies of the Federal government are required to analyze the environmental effects of past actions when they describe the cumulative environmental effect of a proposedaction.

High order actionsproposed by Chin have been used for the first time in path integral Monte Carlo simulations. Contrary to the Takahashi-Imada action, which is accurate to the fourth order only for the trace, the Chin action is fully fourth order, with the additional advantage that the leading fourth-order error coefficients are finely tunable. By optimizing two free parameters entering in the new action, we show that the time step error dependence achieved is best fitted with a sixth order law. The computational effort per bead is increased but the total number of beads is greatly reduced and the efficiency improvement with respect to the primitive approximation is approximately a factor of 10. The Chin action is tested in a one-dimensional harmonic oscillator, a H{sub 2} drop, and bulk liquid {sup 4}He. In all cases a sixth-order law is obtained with values of the number of beads that compare well with the pair action approximation in the stringent test of superfluid {sup 4}He.

Department of Energy Finding of No Significant Impact and Mitigation Action Plan EA-1945: Finding of No Significant Impact and Mitigation Action Plan Northern Mid-Columbia Joint Project; Grant, Douglas, and Chelan Counties, Washington Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) issued a finding of no significant impact, which includes a floodplain statement of findings, for the proposed Northern Mid-Columbia Joint Project, a 230-kilvolt transmission line proposed by BPA and the Public Utility

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) DOE/EA-0958, evaluating the construction and equipping of two components of the proposed Institute for Micro-manufacturing at Louisiana Tech University (LTU), a proposed R and D facility to be located in Ruston, LA. and, the proposed installation of a beamline for micro-machining applications at the Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices (CAMD) facility at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, LA. The objective of the proposed project is to focus on the applied, rather than basic research emphasizing the design and development, metrology, inspection and testing, and the assembly and production of micron and submicron structures and devices. Also, the objective of the beamline at CAMD would be the fundamental study of processing and analysis technologies, including x-ray lithography, which are important to microstructures fabrication and electronic device development. Based on the analysis in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposedaction does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

This document, which was prepared for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Restoration (ER), is a directory of 2628 individuals interested or involved in environmental restoration and/or remedial actions at radioactively contaminated sites. This directory contains a list of mailing addresses and phone numbers of DOE operations, area, site, project, and contractor offices; an index of DOE operations, area, site, project, and contractor office sorted by state; a list of individuals, presented by last name, facsimile number, and e-mail address; an index of affiliations presented alphabetically, with individual contacts appearing below each affiliation name; and an index of foreign contacta sorted by country and affiliation. This document was generated from the Remedial Action Contacts Database, which is maintained by the Remedial Action Program Information Center (RAPIC).

action is required. Assessment of the data generated from investigation activities conducted at CAU 562 is shown in Table ES-1. Based on the evaluation of analytical data from the CAI, review of future and current operations at the 13 CASs, and the detailed and comparative analysis of the potential CAAs, the following corrective actions are recommended for CAU 562. • No further action is the preferred corrective action for CASs 02-60-01, 02-60-06, and 02-60-07. • Clean closure is the preferred corrective action for CASs 02-26-11, 02-44-02, 02-59-01, 02-60-02, 02-60-03, 02-60-04, 02-60-05, 23-60-01, 23-99-06, and 25-60-04. The preferred CAAs were evaluated on technical merit focusing on performance, reliability, feasibility, safety, and cost. The alternatives were judged to meet all requirements for the technical components evaluated. The alternatives meet all applicable federal and state regulations for closure of the site and will reduce potential exposures to contaminated media to acceptable levels. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: • No further corrective action is required at CASs 02-60-01, 02-60-06, and 02-60-07. • Clean closure is recommended for the remaining 10 CASs in CAU 562. • A Corrective Action Plan will be submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection that contains a detailed description of the proposedactions that will be taken to implement the selected corrective actions.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-0254) on the proposed remedial action at the inactive uranium milling site near Riverton, Wyoming. Based on the analyses in the EA, the DOE has determined that the proposedaction does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.). Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required.

Initiatives » Climate Action Champions Climate Action Champions Climate Action Champions The White House launched the Climate Action Champions (CAC) Initiative in December 2014 with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as lead Agency. The Administration expanded the Initiative in December 2015 through a strategic partnership with the Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS). PROGRAM POLICY OBJECTIVES The Climate Action Champions Initiative supports local and tribal government climate

Pursuant to the Arrangement between the European Commission DG Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue cooperation on research, development, testing, and evaluation of technology, equipment, and procedures in order to improve nuclear material control, accountancy, verification, physical protection, and advanced containment and surveillance technologies for international safeguards, dated 1 September 2008, the IRMM and LLNL established cooperation in a program on the Study of Chemical Changes in Uranium Oxyfluoride Particles under IRMM-LLNL Action Sheet 36. The work under this action sheet had 2 objectives: (1) Achieve a better understanding of the loss of fluorine in UO{sub 2}F{sub 2} particles after exposure to certain environmental conditions; and (2) Provide feedback to the EC-JRC on sample reproducibility and characteristics.

Einstein-Hilbert (EH) action can be separated into a bulk and a surface term, with a specific ('holographic') relationship between the two, so that either can be used to extract information about the other. The surface term can also be interpreted as the entropy of the horizon in a wide class of spacetimes. Since EH action is likely to just the first term in the derivative expansion of an effective theory, it is interesting to ask whether these features continue to hold for more general gravitational actions. We provide a comprehensive analysis of Lagrangians of the form {radical}(-g)L={radical}(-g)Q{sub a}{sup bcd}R{sup a}{sub bcd}, in which Q{sub a}{sup bcd} is a tensor with the symmetries of the curvature tensor, made from metric and curvature tensor and satisfies the condition {nabla}{sub c}Q{sub a}{sup bcd}=0, and show that they share these features. The Lanczos-Lovelock Lagrangians are a subset of these in which Q{sub a}{sup bcd} is a homogeneous function of the curvature tensor. They are all holographic, in a specific sense of the term, and--in all these cases--the surface term can be interpreted as the horizon entropy. The thermodynamics route to gravity, in which the field equations are interpreted as TdS=dE+pdV, seems to have a greater degree of validity than the field equations of Einstein gravity itself. The results suggest that the holographic feature of EH action could also serve as a new symmetry principle in constraining the semiclassical corrections to Einstein gravity. The implications are discussed.

Students will work in pairs or small groups to apply knowledge of energy-wise habits to evaluate energy use in their homes and schools and make recommendations for improved efficiency. They will use an energy audit tool to collect data on their home and school energy habits and present an action plan to their class. Further communication at the school and district level is encouraged.

Application Deadlines Allocation Proposal (ERCAP) Application Deadlines Award Type ERCAP Submission Open ERCAP Submission Deadline Award Decision Allocation Period Startup and Education Ongoing November 10, 2016 Within 3 weeks of applying 18 months from award (but must be renewed for the next allocation year) Production (DOE awarded) for the rest of allocation year (AY) 2016 Ongoing November 10, 2016 Within 4 weeks of applying (pending sufficient DOE reserves of time) through January 9, 2017 All

The purpose of this Corrective Action Plan is to provide the detailed scope of work required to implement the recommended corrective actions as specified in the approved Corrective Action Decision Document.

The purpose of this project is to protect human health and the environment from risks associated with the contaminated surplus ATSR. The proposedaction is needed because the ATSR, a former experimental reactor, contains residual radioactivity and hazardous materials.

82 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Rules and Regulations technical errors in § 447.400(a) and § 447.405 listed on page 66701. One correction ensures consistency between two sentences in the same paragraph and the other restores text inadvertently omitted from the final rule that had been included in the May 11, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking (77 FR 27671) on pages 26789-90. Thus, we are correcting page 66701 to reflect the correct information. III. Waiver

Home Technology Deployment Climate Action Planning Tool Technology Deployment - Climate Action Planning Tool NREL's Climate Action Planning Tool provides a quick, basic estimate of how various technology options can contribute to an overall climate action plan for your research campus. Use the tool to identify which options will lead to the most significant reductions in consumption of fossil fuels and in turn meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. Follow these four steps: Gather baseline energy

Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Since President Obama's announcement of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) on June 25, 2013, the Department of Energy (DOE) has moved forward to lead initiatives and support interagency efforts that cut carbon pollution, augment resilience and preparedness in the face of climate impacts, and strengthen international partnerships addressing the issue. This effort involves activities all across the Department, including actions led by the Office of International

Energy Action Month Energy Action Month Energy Action Month Lead our nation to a secure, clean, and prosperous energy future As proclaimed by President Obama, October marks Energy Action Month. With the March announcement of Executive Order 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, the federal government faces even more challenging goals to reduce energy consumption. Agencies are committed to stepping up and adopting more sustainable operations to cut greenhouse gas

This paper presents an unifying graph-based model for representing the infrastructure, behavior and missions of an enterprise. We describe how the model can be used to achieve resiliency against a wide class of failures and attacks. We introduce an algorithm for recommending resilience establishing actions based on dynamic updates to the models. Without loss of generality, we show the effectiveness of the algorithm for preserving latency based quality of service (QoS). Our models and the recommendation algorithms are implemented in a software framework that we seek to release as an open source framework for simulating resilient cyber systems.

This environmental assessment (EA) is prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires Federal agencies to assess the impacts that their actions may have on the environment. This EA examines the short- and long-term effects of the DOE`s proposed remedial action for the Falls City tailings site. The no action alternative is also examined. The DOE will use the information and analyses presented here to determine whether the proposedaction would have a significant impact on the environment. If the impacts are determined to be significant, an EIS will be prepared. If the impacts are not judged to be significant, the DOE will issue an official ``Finding of No Significant Impact`` and implement the proposedaction.

Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps | Department of Energy Against AeroSys, Inc. for Failure to Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps DOE Institutes Enforcement Action Against AeroSys, Inc. for Failure to Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps February 4, 2010 - 1:58pm Addthis Washington, DC - The Department of Energy's Office of General Counsel has issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty to AeroSys, Inc. for failing to file certification reports or filing data that was not derived

DOE guidance to provide assistance in determining whether an action within the scope of an EIS may be taken before a record of decision is issued. The guidance reviews applicable requirements, gives examples of the types of actions that may proceed as interim actions, describes case studies, and outlines the steps in the EIS process for interim actions.

DOE guidance to provide assistance in determining whether an action within the scope of an EIS may be taken before a record of decision is issued. The guidance reviews applicable requirements, gives examples of the types of actions that may proceed as interim actions, describes case studies, and outlines the steps in the EIS process for interim actions.

In 1993, Portland became the first local government in the U.S. to adopt a plan for reducing carbon emissions. The current Portland Climate Action Plan was adopted by Portland City Council in 2009. Portland’s overarching climate objective is to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, with an interim goal of a 40 percent reduction by 2030. Portland has reduced emissions by 14 percent as of 2013, through a combination of improved efficiency in buildings, appliances, and vehicles; a shift to lower-carbon energy sources; a focus on a compact urban development pattern; and a rise in walking, biking and transit made possible by shifts in infrastructure investment.

This Trails Management Program Mitigation Action Plan Annual Report (Trails MAPAR) has been prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as part of implementing the 2003 Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Los Alamos National Laboratory Trails Management Program (DOE 2003). The Trails Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) is now a part of the Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory (DOE/EIS 0380) Mitigation Action Plan (2008 SWEIS MAP) (DOE 2008). The MAP provides guidance for the continued implementation of the Trails Management Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and integration of future mitigation actions into the 2008 SWEIS MAP to decrease impacts associated with recreational trails use at LANL. This eighth MAPAR includes a summary of Trails Management Program activities and actions during Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, from October 2012 through September 2013.

The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, Public Law (PL) 95-604, authorized the US Department of Energy (DOE) to perform remedial action at the Naturita, Colorado, uranium processing site to reduce the potential health effects from the radioactive materials at the site and at vicinity properties associated with the site. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated standards for the UMTRCA that contain measures to control the contaminated materials and to protect groundwater quality. Remedial action at the Naturita site must be performed in accordance with these standards and with the concurrence of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the state of Colorado. The proposed remedial action for the Naturita processing site is relocation of the contaminated materials and debris to either the Dry Flats disposal site, 6 road miles (mi) [10 kilometers (km)] to the southeast, or a licensed non-DOE disposal facility capable of handling RRM. At either disposal site, the contaminated materials would be stabilized and covered with layers of earth and rock. The proposed Dry Flats disposal site is on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and used primarily for livestock grazing. The final disposal site would cover approximately 57 ac (23 ha), which would be permanently transferred from the BLM to the DOE and restricted from future uses. The remedial action would be conducted by the DOE`s Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. This report discusses environmental impacts associated with the proposed remedial action.

The proposed remedial action for the Naturita processing site is relocation of the contaminated materials and debris to the Dry Flats disposal sits, 6 road miles (mi) [10 kilometers (km)) to the southeast. At the disposal site, the contaminated materials would be stabilized and covered with layers of earth and rock. The proposed disposal site is on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and used primarily for livestock grazing. The final disposal sits would cover approximately 57 ac (23 ha), which would be permanently transferred from the BLM to the DOE and restricted from future uses. The remedial action activities would be conducted by the DOE`s Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. The proposed remedial action would result in the loss of approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of soils at the processing and disposal sites; however, 133 ac (55 ha) of these soils at and adjacent to the processing site are contaminated and cannot be used for other purposes. If supplemental standards are approved by the NRC and state of Colorado, approximately 112 ac (45 ha) of contaminated soils adjacent to the processing site would not be cleaned up. This area is steeply sloped. The cleanup of this contamination would have adverse environmental consequences and would be potentially hazardous to remedial action workers. Another 220 ac (89 ha) of soils would be temporarily disturbed during the remedial action. The final disposal site would result in approximately 57 ac (23 ha) being removed from livestock grazing and wildlife use.

The proposed remedial action for the Naturita processing site is relocation of the contaminated materials and debris to the Dry Flats disposal site, 6 road miles (mi) [10 kilometers (km)] to the southeast. At the disposal site, the contaminated materials would be stabilized and covered with layers of earth and rock. The proposed disposal site is on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and used primarily for livestock grazing. The final disposal site would cover approximately 57 ac (23 ha), which would be permanently transferred from the BLM to the DOE and restricted from future uses. The remedial action activities would be conducted by the DOE`s Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. The proposed remedial action would result in the loss of approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of soils at the processing and disposal sites; however, 133 ac (55 ha) of these soils at and adjacent to the processing site are contaminated and cannot be used for other purposes. If supplemental standards are approved by the NRC and state of Colorado, approximately 112 ac (45 ha) of contaminated soils adjacent to the processing site would not be cleaned up. This area is steeply sloped. The cleanup of this contamination would have adverse environmental consequences and would be potentially hazardous to remedial action workers. Another 220 ac (89 ha) of soils would be temporarily disturbed during the remedial action. The final disposal site would result in approximately 57 ac (23 ha) being removed from livestock grazing and wildlife use.

This Corrective Action Decision Document/Closure Report (CADD/CR) has been prepared for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 309, Area 12 Muckpiles, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada. The corrective actionsproposed in this document are according to the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Defense (FFACO, 1996). The NTS is approximately 65 miles (mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1-1). Corrective Action Unit 309 is comprised of the three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) (Figure 1-1) listed below: (1) CAS 12-06-09, Muckpile; (2) CAS 12-08-02, Contaminated Waste Dump (CWD); and (3) CAS 12-28-01, I-, J-, and K-Tunnel Debris. Corrective Action Sites 12-06-09 and 12-08-02 will be collectively referred to as muckpiles in this document. Corrective Action Site 12-28-01 will be referred to as the fallout plume because of the extensive lateral area of debris and fallout contamination resulting from the containment failures of the J- and K-Tunnels. A detailed discussion of the history of this CAU is presented in the ''Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) for Corrective Action Unit 309: Area 12 Muckpiles, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada.'' (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This CADD/CR provides justification for the closure of CAU 309 without further corrective action. This justification is based on process knowledge and the results of the investigative activities conducted according to the CAIP (NNSA/NSO, 2004), which provides information relating to the history, planning, and scope of the investigation. Therefore, this information will not be repeated in this CADD/CR.

Key Actions for Optimizing for KNL Key Actions for Optimizing for KNL This webinar consisted of a presentation by Nathan Wichmann of Cray entitled, "Key Actions When Optimizing for KNL." Nathan is a Principal Performance Engineer responsible for tackling performance problems at Cray for many years and he is our contact for the NERSC/Cray Cori Applications Center of Excellence. Nathan's presentation results, in part, from his participation in several "brainstorming" telecons

This document provides a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the RCRA corrective action and the CERCLA remedial action processes. On the even-numbered pages a discussion of the RCRA corrective action process is presented and on the odd-numbered pages a comparative discussion of the CERCLA remedial action process can be found. Because the two programs have a difference structure, there is not always a direct correlation between the two throughout the document. This document serves as an informative reference for Departmental and contractor personnel responsible for oversight or implementation of RCRA corrective action and CERCLA remedial action activities at DOE environmental restoration sites.

Project Rulison was a joint US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Austral Oil Company (Austral) experiment, conducted under the AEC`s Plowshare Program, to evaluate the feasibility of using a nuclear device to stimulate natural gas production in low-permeability gas-producing geologic formations. The experiment was conducted on September 10, 1969, and consisted of detonating a 40-kiloton nuclear device at a depth of 2,568 m below ground surface (BGS). This Corrective Action Report describes the cleanup of petroleum hydrocarbon- and heavy-metal-contaminated sediments from an old drilling effluent pond and characterization of the mud pits used during drilling of the R-EX well at the Rulison Site. The Rulison Site is located approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles) northeast of Grand Junction, Colorado. The effluent pond was used for the storage of drilling mud during drilling of the emplacement hole for the 1969 gas stimulation test conducted by the AEC. This report also describes the activities performed to determine whether contamination is present in mud pits used during the drilling of well R-EX, the gas production well drilled at the site to evaluate the effectiveness of the detonation in stimulating gas production. The investigation activities described in this report were conducted during the autumn of 1995, concurrent with the cleanup of the drilling effluent pond. This report describes the activities performed during the soil investigation and provides the analytical results for the samples collected during that investigation.

(YJ 4 tlsj .?I2 416 17 1983 NE-24 Unlverslty of Chicayo Remedial Action Plan 22&d 7 IA +-- E. I.. Keller, Director Technical Services Division Oak Ridge Operations Ufflce In response to your memorandum dated July 29, 1983, the Field Task Proposal/Agreement (FTP/A) received frw Aryonne National Laboratory (ANL) appears to be satisfactory, and this office concurs in the use of ANL to provide the decontamination effort as noted in the FTP/A. The final decontaminatton report should Include the

DOE has evaluated alternatives for demolishing the buildings at the Portsmouth Site. Two remedial alternatives were developed for consideration. This Proposed Plan describes the required no-action alternative (Alternative 1) and a D&D alternative (Alternative 2). The preferred alternative is Alternative 2, controlled demolition of the process buildings and complex facilities.

The proposedaction would be to design, construct, and operate a High Explosive Science and Engineering (HE S&E) facility that would support NNSA’s mission at the Pantex Plant. The HE S&E facility would serve as the scientific and engineering hub supporting all High Explosive Center of Excellence activities and technology development activities at Pantex.

Call for General User Proposals - Upcoming Deadline Call for General User Proposals - Upcoming Deadline Print The User Office is accepting new General User Proposals (GUPs) from scientists who wish to conduct research at the ALS in the 2016-2 July-Dec cycle. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE: March 2, 2016 Please log in to ALSHub to submit a new GUP or to make a Beam Time Request (BTR) on an existing active proposal. Users are reminded that they need to have an ALSHub account to submit proposals, and

This Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provides selected corrective action alternatives and proposes the closure methodology for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 262, Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point. CAU 262 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) of 1996. Remediation of CAU 262 is required under the FFACO. CAU 262 is located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), approximately 100 kilometers (km) (62 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The nine Corrective Action Sites (CASs) within CAU 262 are located in the Nuclear Rocket Development Station complex. Individual CASs are located in the vicinity of the Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (R-MAD); Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (E-MAD); and Test Cell C compounds. CAU 262 includes the following CASs as provided in the FFACO (1996); CAS 25-02-06, Underground Storage Tank; CAS 25-04-06, Septic Systems A and B; CAS 25-04-07, Septic System; CAS 25-05-03, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-05, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-06, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-08, Radioactive Leachfield; CAS 25-05-12, Leachfield; and CAS 25-51-01, Dry Well. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the locations of the R-MAD, the E-MAD, and the Test Cell C CASs, respectively. The facilities within CAU 262 supported nuclear rocket reactor engine testing. Activities associated with the program were performed between 1958 and 1973. However, several other projects used the facilities after 1973. A significant quantity of radioactive and sanitary waste was produced during routine operations. Most of the radioactive waste was managed by disposal in the posted leachfields. Sanitary wastes were disposed in sanitary leachfields. Septic tanks, present at sanitary leachfields (i.e., CAS 25-02-06,2504-06 [Septic Systems A and B], 25-04-07, 25-05-05,25-05-12) allowed solids to settle out of suspension prior to entering the leachfield. Posted leachfields do not contain septic tanks. All CASs located in CAU 262 are

Process in Brief The international scientific community can perform research at the CNM through a general user access program. Proposals are submitted through a online proposal system. Proposals are peer-reviewed, rated, and time is allocated on the basis of these reviews by appropriate allocation committees. How to Submit a Proposal You must register online through the User Facility Registration System. Study the CNM Research Groups and identify the capabilities you plan to use. Consult the

Proposal Writing Guidelines and Scoring Criteria Print Principal Investigator The proposal form asks for the names and contact information of the experiment leader completing the form and the Principal Investigator (PI). The PI is the leader and the individual responsible for the group, and the experiment leader is often the person completing the proposal form. In this way the ALS would like to encourage postdocs and students to gain experience in submitting proposals as the experiment leader,

The ROI Proposal Preparation Guide is a tool to assist Hanford waste generators in preparing ROI proposal forms for submittal to Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE/RL) for funding. The guide describes the requirements for submitting an ROI proposal and provides examples of completed ROI forms. The intent is to assist waste generators in identifying projects that meet the criteria, provide information necessary to complete the ROI forms, and submit a proposal that is eligible to receive funding.

INCITE Proposals 2013 INCITE Proposals due June 27 June 15, 2012 by Francesca Verdier The Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program promotes transformational advances in science and technology through large allocations of computer time, supporting resources, and data storage at the Argonne and Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facilities. 2013 proposals are due June 27. See 2013 INCITE Call for Proposals. Subscribe via RSS Subscribe Browse by Date August

The US Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to build a beamline on the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) site to accommodate an experimental research program in neutrino physics. The proposedaction, called Neutrino Beams at the Main Injector (NuMI), is to design, construct, operate and decommission a facility for producing and studying a high flux beam of neutrinos in the energy range of 1 to 40 GeV (1 GeV is one billion or 10{sup 9} electron volts). The proposed facility would initially be dedicated to two experiments, COSMOS (Cosmologically Significant Mass Oscillations) and MINOS (Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search). The neutrino beam would pass underground from Fermilab to northern Minnesota. A tunnel would not be built in this intervening region because the neutrinos easily pass through the earth, not interacting, similar to the way that light passes through a pane of glass. The beam is pointed towards the MINOS detector in the Soudan Underground Laboratory in Minnesota. Thus, the proposed project also includes construction, operation and decommissioning of the facility located in the Soudan Underground Laboratory in Minnesota that houses this MINOS detector. This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with the DOE`s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures (10 CFR 1021). This EA documents DOE`s evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of NuMI at Fermilab and its far detector facility located in the Soudan Underground Laboratory in Minnesota. Any future use of the facilities on the Fermilab site would require the administrative approval of the Director of Fermilab and would undergo a separate NEPA review. Fermilab is a Federal high-energy physics research laboratory in Batavia, Illinois operated on behalf of the DOE by Universities Research Association, Inc.

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 168 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order of 1996 as Area 25 and 26 Contaminated Materials and Waste Dumps. CAU 168 consists of twelve Corrective Action Sites (CASs) in Areas 25 and 26 of the Nevada Test Site, which is approximately 105 kilometers (65 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The CASs contain surface and subsurface debris, impacted soil, and contaminated materials. Site characterization activities were conducted in 2002, and the results are presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD) for CAU 168 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2006). Site characterization results indicated that soil at several sites exceeded the clean-up criteria for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and radionuclides. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection approved the proposed corrective actions specified in the CADD (NNSA/NSO, 2006). The approved corrective actions include no further action, clean closure, and closure in place with administrative controls.

FY 1985 project accomplishments include: completed 90% of the processing site remedial actions at Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, and initiated remedial actions at Salt Lake City, Utah, and Shiprock, New Mexico; awarded remedial action contracts on 329 vicinity properties at seven designated locations and completed survey and inclusion activities on a total of 1620 vicinity properties; published the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Lakeview, Oregon, issued the draft and prepared the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Durango, Colorado; completed the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for Lakeview, Oregon, and prepared the draft RAP for Durango, Colorado; executed cooperative agreements with Idaho, New Mexico, and the Navajo Nation/Hopi Tribe; executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and developed proposed UMTRA Project design review criteria between DOE and the NRC.

This Removal Action Plan documents the plan for implementation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compenstion, and Liability Act non-time-critical removal action to be performed by the Accelerated Retrieval Project. The focus of the action is the limited excavation and retrieval of selected waste streams from a designated portion of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex Subsurface Disposal Area that are contaminated with volatile organic compounds, isotopes of uranium, or transuranic radionuclides. The selected retrieval area is approximately 0.2 ha (1/2 acre) and is located in the eastern portion of Pit 4. The proposed project is referred to as the Accelerated Retrieval Project. This Removal Action Plan details the major work elements, operations approach, and schedule, and summarizes the environmental, safety and health, and waste management considerations associated with the project.

The proposed remedial action for the Naturita processing site is relocation of the contaminated materials and debris to the Dry Flats disposal site, 6 road miles (mi) [ 1 0 kilometers (km)] to the southeast. At the disposal site, the contaminated materials would be stabilized and covered with layers of earth and rock. The proposed disposal site is on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and used primarily for livestock grazing. The final disposal site would cover approximately 57 ac (23 ha), which would be permanently transferred from the BLM to the DOE and restricted from future uses. The remedial action activities would be conducted by the DOE`s Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. The remedial action would result in the loss of approximately 164 ac (66 ha) of soils, but 132 ac (53 ha) of these soils are contaminated and cannot be used for other purposes. Another 154 ac (62 ha) of soils would be temporarily disturbed. Approximately 57 ac (23 ha) of open range land would be permanently removed from livestock grazing and wildlife use. The removal of the contaminated materials would affect the 1 00-year floodplain of the San Miguel River and would result in the loss of riparian habitat along the river. The southwestern willow flycatcher, a Federal candidate species, may be affected by the remedial action, and the use of water from the San Miguel River ``may affect`` the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail chub, and razorback sucker. Traffic levels on State Highways 90 and 141 would be increased during the remedial action, as would the noise levels along these transportation routes. Measures for mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed remedial action are discussed in Section 6.0 of this environmental assessment (EA).

This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during one quarterly period (April--June 1995) and includes copies of Orders sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to individuals with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC. The Commission believes this information may be useful to licensees in making employment decisions.

This Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD)/Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 551, Area 12 Muckpiles, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada. The corrective actionsproposed in this document are in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of Defense (FFACO, 1996). The NTS is approximately 65 miles (mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1-1). Corrective Action Unit 551 is comprised of the four Corrective Action Sites (CASs) that are shown on Figure 1-2 and listed below: CAS 12-01-09, Aboveground Storage Tank and Stain; CAS 12-06-05, U-12b Muckpile; CAS 12-06-07, Muckpile; and CAS 12-06-08, Muckpile. A detailed discussion of the history of this CAU is presented in the ''Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) for Corrective Action Unit 551: Area 12 Muckpiles'' (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This CADD/CR provides justification for the closure of CAU 551 in place with administrative controls. This justification is based upon process knowledge and the results of the investigative activities conducted in accordance with the CAIP (NNSA/NSO, 2004). The CAIP provides information relating to the history, planning, and scope of the investigation; therefore, this information will not be repeated in the CADD/CR. Corrective Action Unit 551, Area 12 Muckpiles, consists of four inactive sites located in the southwestern portion of Area 12. The four CAU 551 sites consist of three muckpiles, and an aboveground storage tank (AST) and stain. The CAU 551 sites were all used during underground nuclear testing at the B-, C-, D- and F-Tunnels in the late 1950s and early 1960s and have mostly remained inactive since that period.

The Bonneville Power Administration developed this supplemental statement to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed alternative actions to alternative actions intended to address the need for reliability of electrical service to loads in Northwest Montana and North Idaho and the need for integrating the generation being added at Libby Dam into the Federal Columbia River Power System.

The report summarizes results of an oil spill risk analysis (OSRA) conducted for the proposed Navarin Basin OCS Lease Sale 107. The objective of the analysis was to estimate relative risks associated with oil and gas production from proposed leasing alternatives for the proposed lease sale. The analysis will be considered in the environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared for the lease area by the Minerals Management Service (MMS). The proposedaction (Alternative I) is to offer for lease OCS lands in the Navarin Basin. The leasing proposal consists of nearly 5,036 blocks (11.4 million hectares) located in the Bering Sea approximately 30 to 225 miles (48 to 360 km) off St. Matthew Island. The area lies in waters that are from 70 to 2,400 meters deep. The 41 hypothetical spill locations, which are used to represent platform and transportation risks for the risk analysis.

characterize site STOP no further action needed No Yes Is development successful? 4b No Yes Is it appropriate to invest time and money in new treatment technologies? (consider risk) 4a Yes No Are treatment technologies available? 4 Yes No Are retrieval technologies available? 3 Yes No Does the waste site require action? (consider risk) 2 Has the waste site been adequately characterized? 1 Yes No Yes No Are disposal alternatives available? 5 Yes No Are retrieval, treatment and disposal

US Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a vehicle control system for reducing gasoline vapors that can escape into the environment during refueling of motor vehicles. It has also has been proposed that gasoline refiners lower the volatility of commercial fuels in summer to reduce vehicle evaporative emissions. EPA said nationwide emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), a major contributor to the formation of urban ozone, could be reduced as much as 10% under the proposed pollution-control measures.

2016 VAF Call for Proposals Call for Proposals: VAF Now Accepting Applications Selected companies will receive financial awards to assist in taking their innovations to market more quickly. The median award amount has averaged $45,000. March 7, 2016 VAF call for proposals The VAF is the only non-dilutive local source of seed financing for very early stage technology startups in northern New Mexico. The funding fills a unique niche in that it supports companies that lack collateral for debt

This safety assessment addresses each of the elements required for the proposedaction to remove a slurry distributor and to install, operate, and remove a mixing pump in Tank 241-SY-101,which is located within the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.The proposedaction is required as part of an ongoing evaluation of various mitigation concepts developed to eliminate episodic gas releases that result in hydrogen concentrations in the tank dome space that exceed the lower flammability limit.

This safety assessment addresses each of the elements required for the proposedaction to remove a slurry distributor and to install, operate, and remove a mixing pump in Tank 241-SY-101, which is located within the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington. The proposedaction is required as part of an ongoing evaluation of various mitigation concepts developed to eliminate episodic gas releases that result in hydrogen concentrations in the tank dome space that exceed the lower flammability limit.

This Corrective Action Investigation Plan contains the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operation Office's approach to collect the data necessary to evaluate corrective action alternatives appropriate for the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 230/320 under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Corrective Action Unit 230 consists of Corrective Action Site (CAS) 22-03-01, Sewage Lagoon; while CAU 320 consists of CAS 22-99-01, Strainer Box. These CAUs are referred to as CAU 230/320 or the Sewage Lagoons Site. The Sewage Lagoons Site also includes an Imhoff tank, sludge bed, and associated buried sewer piping. Located in Area 22, the site was used between 1951 to 1958 for disposal of sanitary sewage effluent from the historic Camp Desert Rock Facility at the Nevada Test Site in Nevada. Based on site history, the contaminants of potential concern include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and radionuclides. Vertical migration is estimated to be less than 12 feet below ground surface, and lateral migration is limited to the soil immediately adjacent to or within areas of concern. The proposed investigation will involve a combination of field screening for VOCs and TPH using the direct-push method and excavation using a backhoe to gather soil samples for analysis. Gamma spectroscopy will also be conducted for waste management purposes. Sampling locations will be biased to suspected worst-case areas including the nearby sludge bed, sewage lagoon inlet(s) and outlet(s), disturbed soil surrounding the lagoons, surface drainage channel south of the lagoons, and the area near the Imhoff tank. The results of this field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of corrective action alternatives in the corrective action decision document.

This compilation summarizes significant enforcement actions that have been resolved during the period and includes copies of letters, Notices, and Orders sent by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to material licensees with respect to these enforcement actions. It is anticipated that the information in this publication will be widely disseminated to managers and employees engaged in activities licensed by the NRC, so that actions can be taken to improve safety by avoiding future violations similar to those described in this publication.

Corrective Action Sites (CASs) and Corrective Action Units (CAUs) at the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) may be placed into three categories: Clean Closure/No Further Action, Closure in Place, or Closure in Progress.

This document assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed remedial action at the Mexican Hat uranium mill tailings site located on the Navajo Reservation in southern Utah. The site covers 235 acres and contains 69 acres of tailings and several of the original mill structures. Remedial action must be performed in accordance with standards and with the concurrence of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Navajo Nation. The proposedaction is to stabilize the tailings within the present tailings site by consolidating the tailings and associated contaminated soils into a recontoured pile. A radon barrier of compacted earth would be constructed over the pile, and various erosion control measures would be taken to assure the long-term stability of the pile. The no action alternative is also assessed in this document. 240 refs., 12 figs., 20 tabs.

This Technical Annex documents the assumptions and parameters used in developing the supporting analysis for the Climate Change Action Plan (the Plan) issued by President Clinton on October 19, 1993. The Annex is intended to meet the needs of independent energy and environmental analysts who wish to better understand the Plan, its analytical underpinnings, and the events that need to transpire for the emissions reductions called for in the Plan to be realized. The Plan documented in this Annex reflects the outcome of a wide-ranging effort by Government agencies and interested members of the public to develop and implement actions that can reduce net greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 to their aggregate 1990 level. Based on agency and public input, the Climate Change Mitigation Group, chaired by the White House Office on Environmental Policy, developed the Plan`s content. Many of the actions called for in the Plan are now underway, while others are in advanced planning pending congressional action on the fiscal year 1995 budget. The analysis supporting the Plan represents the results of an interagency effort. The US Department of Energy (DOE) was responsible for the integrated analysis of energy-related options, based on the analysis of individual energy-related options by DOE, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Department of Transportation (DOT). EPA led in providing analysis for actions related to methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) led the analysis of carbon sequestration actions and cooperated with EPA in the analysis of actions to reduce nitrous oxide emissions.

This Remedial Action Work Plan provides the framework for operation of the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility Complex (ICDF). This facility includes (a) an engineered landfill that meets the substantial requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C, Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl landfill requirements; (b) centralized receiving, inspections, administration, storage/staging, and treatment facilities necessary for CERCLA investigation-derived, remedial, and removal waste at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) prior to final disposition in the disposal facility or shipment off-Site; and (c) an evaporation pond that has been designated as a corrective action management unit. The ICDF Complex, including a buffer zone, will cover approximately 40 acres, with a landfill disposal capacity of approximately 510,000 yd3. The ICDF Complex is designed and authorized to accept INL CERCLA-generated wastes, and includes the necessary subsystems and support facilities to provide a complete waste management system. This Remedial Action Work Plan presents the operational approach and requirements for the various components that are part of the ICDF Complex. Summaries of the remedial action work elements are presented herein, with supporting information and documents provided as appendixes to this work plan that contain specific detail about the operation of the ICDF Complex. This document presents the planned operational process based upon an evaluation of the remedial action requirements set forth in the Operable Unit 3-13 Final Record of Decision.

This Remedial Action Plan (RAP) has been developed to serve a two-fold purpose. It presents the series of activities which are proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to accomplish long-term stabilization and control of radioactive materials at the inactive uranium processing site located near Monument Valley, Arizona It also serves to document the concurrence of both the Navajo Nation and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the remedial action. This agreement, upon execution by DOE and the Navajo Nation and concurrence by NRC, becomes Appendix B of the Cooperative Agreement.

Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps | Department of Energy Institutes Enforcement Action Against AeroSys, Inc. for Failure to Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps DOE Institutes Enforcement Action Against AeroSys, Inc. for Failure to Certify Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps February 4, 2010 - 1:58pm Addthis Washington, DC - The Department of Energy's Office of General Counsel has issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty to AeroSys, Inc. for failing to file certification reports or

NIF Discovery Science: Full Proposal Instructions 5/16/16 (rev.) 1 Please prepare your full proposal according to the following instructions. Append biographical sketches (CVs) for the Principal Investigator (PI) and no more than 5 additional key team members to the end of this proposal. Submission Deadlines: Save the entire document as a single file in pdf format, and submit via the Web submission tool before 11:59 p.m. on September 1, 2016, PDT. I. COVER SHEET: (1 page) 1) Please provide the

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0347) on the proposed surface remediation of the Maybell uranium mill processing site in Moffat County, Colorado. The mill site contains radioactively contaminated materials from processing uranium ore that would be stabilized in place at the existing tailings pile location. Based on the analysis in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposedaction does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Public Law 91-190 (42 U.S.C. {section}4321 et seq.), as amended. Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

The purpose of this Corrective Action Unit (CAU) Work Plan is to provide a strategy to be used by the US Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV), the US Department of Defense (DoD) Defense Special Weapons Agency (DSWA) (formerly the Defense Nuclear Agency), and contractor personnel for conducting corrective actions at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and Nevada off-site locations including the Tonopah Test Range (TTR), the Project Shoal Area, and the Central Nevada Test Area. This Work Plan applies to housekeeping category CAUs already listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) Appendices (FFACO, 1996) as well as newly identified Corrective Action Sites (CASs) that will follow the housekeeping process.

The purpose of this Service Action Plan is to announce, as well as provide, a high-level outline of a new Departmental process for the adoption and retirement of information technology standards. This process supports the implementation of a Department of Energy (DOE) Information Architecture. This plan was prepared with the Department of Energy information technology standards customers and stakeholders in mind. The process described in this plan will be serviced primarily by staff from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Management with assistance from designated program and site Information Technology Standards Points of Contact. We welcome any comments regarding this new Departmental process and encourage the proposal of information technology standards for adoption or retirement.

Information and documents for conducting an investment grade audit to evaluate potential measures and presenting a project proposal for a set of bundled measures that deliver savings to pay for the project over the finance term.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Sanyo Electric Co. failed to certify a variety of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Lumiram Electric Corporation failed to certify a variety of incandescent reflector lamps as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that American Power Solutions, Inc. failed to certify a general service fluorescent lamp as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that The Mackle Company, Inc. failed to certify a variety of residential clothes dryers as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Trastar Inc. failed to certify a variety of basic models of traffic signal modules and pedestrian models as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Jamison Door Company failed to certify a variety of walk-in cooler or freezer components as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that The L.D. Kiebler Co. d/b/a Kichler Lighting failed to certify a variety of ceiling fans as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that CNA International Inc. d/b/a MC Appliance Corporation failed to certify a variety of room air conditioners as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Matthews-Gerbar, Ltd. d/b/a Matthews Fan Company failed to certify a variety of ceiling fans as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Daewoo International Inc. failed to certify a variety of residential clothes dryers as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Anthony International failed to certify a variety of walk-in cooler or freezer components as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Nostalgia Products Group, LLC failed to certify a variety of consumer refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Fagor America, Inc. failed to certify a variety of residential refrigerator-freezers and dishwashers as compliant with the applicable energy and water conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that BSH Home Appliances Corp. failed to certify a variety of residential clothes washers as compliant with the applicable energy/water conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Leotek Electronics USA Corp. failed to certify a variety of traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.

DOE alleged in a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that Excellence Opto, Inc. failed to certify a variety of traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules as compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards.